"The only disability is a bad attitude": Exploring athletes' experiences in a successful sport program for athletes with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research suggests that sport participation can have important benefits for youth's physical and psychosocial development (Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005). While this research provides valuable insight into the types of positive outcomes that may be acquired through sport, the existing literature primarily focuses on the experiences of able-bodied athletes. Limited research has examined the sport experiences of athletes with disabilities (Martin, 2006). The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of athletes' experiences in a successful swim program for athletes with physical disabilities and their able-bodied siblings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight athletes with disabilities and two able-bodied siblings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were subjected to a content analysis procedure in which raw meaning units were grouped into salient themes (Côté et al., 1993). Results indicated that participation in this program provided athletes with a myriad of positive experiences. More specifically, athletes' responses regarding the outcomes derived from this program revealed four common themes: 1) redefined capabilities, 2) affirmed sense of self, 3) expanded social networks, and 4) enhanced acceptance. Processes facilitating the development of these outcomes are discussed. Practical implications for program administrators, coaches, and athletes are presented along with recommendations for future disability sport research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".